PlanetCatfish.com

I was sitting and staring at this post I had written not wanting to hit enter.....but thinking it is necessary to yet again discuss the subject for the completeness of the Cat-eLog, ... I am also beginning to be questioned on the matter by others.

It is the ongoing masculine vs. feminine matter of Synodontis:

PlanetCatfish has them presently in the feminine after some agonizing(and reluctant) decisions in 2008...

CoF has gone back to masculine with the feminine endings as synonyms

Fishbase has followed and gone masculine

Recent papers:

The fishes of Zimbabwe-Marshall,2011-masculine

A large-scale phylogeny of Synodontis, Aurelei et al, Jan 4th 2013-masculine

Continental Diversification of an African Catfish Radiation (Mochokidae: Synodontis)-Day et al-jan 9th 2013-feminine

Interesting but also not a new subject....Day et al have put Brachysynodontis and Hemisynodontis in synonymy with Synodontis( Pg 15.)

Opinions????

Birger

I am not sure where the basis of treating Synodontis as feminine comes from. The name comes from the Greek σύν meaning “together” and ὀδούς meaning “tooth”. The latter is a masculine noun, so I think the name should be regarded as masculine.

Yes, it's a sore one and maybe one I called wrong. I've had side conversations with other systematicists of African fishes who also questioned it. One common view was it would add confusion as hadn't been done with a published reason.

It's a good days work to change it (again). My feeling would be to kick it around a bit for a while. During tht process it may become more sensible to have this thread in the catelog forum rather than here in T&SN.

Cheers,

Jools

I have made the necessary changes.

Just not sure on one species...I have currently changed it but was described in 2008 as macropunctata (which was during the feminine stage) and I am not sure if it should maybe stay as originally described.
COF has it now as macropuntatus but that does not say it is correct.

Opinions???

Guess I could check with Jeremy.


Birger

Birger wrote:I have made the necessary changes.
Birger

Lot's of work!

That's a big bit of work indeed but all done now I think? Nice one Birger!

Jools

The quick find will take 48 hours to correct itself and AR will need 24 hours to absorb the changes too. There are also probably CotM and SW articles that need fixing too (if anyone wants to list them that would be helpful as it's only @MatsP and myself that can fix those things). So I will not move this to resolved as yet.

Cheers, and thanks again,

Jools

Unfortunately, it turns out that odontis is feminine after all.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ek#lexicon

Nice. It looks like we are in line with CoF (thus fishbase) and one recent study and at odds with one recent study. And both studies being published within a few days of each other! Gut feel would be to leave this issue for a paper or two (or a year or two) and take measure the temperature again.

Silurus has helpfully pointed out what is correct and that may well be the final position. But, have any of these papers actually pointed this out and listed all the species affected (or referenced where this is done)? Might be that is (or should be) the trigger?

For now, I don't care as long as all the species in the database (site) are consistently M or F.

Jools

I think this is done for now....

moved to resolved.

Yes, I actually picked up a couple of stray ones in CotM articles in the past week.

Jools